tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Tue Dec 04 21:51:44 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: Basic grammar question
- From: "Qang qu'wI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: Basic grammar question
- Date: Tue, 4 Dec 2007 23:49:07 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; bh=l+eV9Q6oBf5rokAHEf1nghBnABP47F3cQZ0xBiijQ20=; b=KdaHG1sHHfRq3L5+KAYaIBj9dMFwTYfyPEi7+Suks+/HOsZn0PaNbgfEsRsUwLeRH+3rL0yv8JM8wLFBZaC4pF7CZm8nmewryjtwALFoNGET8TsVxucQ0Mg1ad554GPOiS4IhU481pRLGVtNjxsKD5xLL+DKGTC1ttaU9V4nC6Q=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references; b=iETeqlufxavP2rAG0aFvtc6t4VOb9f40gy/YxLliiXylLOInQS1nZgOizU2KgYmwaOuJbuvMibny6yDeJhsJozX9ZPDUhcNbfg2bBv+fxWGAcV2GvkyV/7QL3FWiT5+Tdixwz69NUmAqBn0dPmca9TO7ekSdn0Ou/3j7g7WsfhA=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]>
On Dec 4, 2007 6:03 AM, QeS 'utlh <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
> For my part, I've done exactly the opposite: I've taken Okrand's blatant
> Englishism and generalised it to cover phrasings that couldn't be well
> handled in English. I choose to let what SuStel called the "prefix trick" be
> able to work on *any* verb that has a {-vaD}-marked object. I've written
> things like {DujwIj chotI'} "you fixed my ship for me" in Klingon that would
> be awkward at best and outright ungrammatical at worst if phrased the same
> way in English (?"you fixed me my ship"?). Of course, the fact that *any*
> such prefix trick construct can be replaced with a noun marked with {-vaD}
> means that you're in no way limiting yourself by choosing not to use the
> prefix trick. The choice is entirely up to you.
>
> (Personally, I feel that usage of the suffix {-vaD} as a dative, rather
> than as a benefactive - which, according to TKD (see p. 28), is what it
> strictly is - is a more concerning Englishism than the prefix trick, and I
> prefer to express purely dative arguments with the prefix trick where I can.
> Just my two cents.)
>
> I'm really intrigued by this idea. I don't fully comprehend the formal
linguistic terminology - but I can go do a little research on that and then
think through what you've said. I think that you're describing a way to
switch between using the prefix trick and -vaD in a manner that is sort of
opposite of the way the corresponding ideas are used in English.
--
Qang qu'wI'